He also faces 14 charges
I think is the main point that the article sidelined. Move along, nothing to see here but a common or garden perv.
A man appeared before Swansea magistrates this week accused of possessing extreme porn images, including one which allegedly shows "a person performing an act of intercourse with a dead animal, namely a squid." Or octopus. The reports are not 100 per cent clear. The Sun reported this week that Andrew Dymond, 46, from Mumbles …
This piece initially sounds like it's attacking the overbearing law and the police/cps for prosecuting over a few weird piccies... but wait!!! The guy's allegedly making (which I assume means copying/downloading in this context) child pornography. Are we attacking that too? I must try and keep up.
That "making an image" thing seems to be a hangover from the days when the law didn't explicitly mention computers, and the prosecution was trying to find a way to justify confiscating the hardware.
It really is a serious misapplication of law to still be using the term. It suggests that the guy was actually standing over the abused child with a camera.
...the "main" point. extreme porn has proven a rich vein for stories over the last few years, for a variety of different reasons.
First, because of the legal principle it embodies. Next up, because of how it has been used (in practice, it has mostly turned into a "dangerous dogs act")...with very little attention so far paid to human-human porn. The latter seems to turn up as add-on charge or consolation prize when the police can't do someone for anything else.
Or alternatively, on occasion, it is simply ridiculous - as here. Was in the supermarket yesterday and passed a fridge full of frozen squid. Now, i'm partial to a little squid myself...mostly flash fried with butter and garlic.
But this law suggests that if any of our readers took one frozen ickle squid home, and forked it (into their mouth) they would be perfectly ok to do so... but fucking it could see you sent to prison. What a difference two letters can make. :)
i am very alive to the child abuse issue and don't under-estimate its seriousness. but two points: we're not pretending its not there...just its part of another (much more serious) story
Second - and this is another story too - however hard one tries to disentangle laws on ep from child protection it is very difficult, because whatever others think, government is determined to view the two issues as linked or even two sides of the same coin.
Typical Sun for focussing on the sensationalist parts of this case. I'm willing to bet that on the opposite page there was an article about some celebrity taking drugs/partying to hard or an article where the Sun self-congratulates over backing the "winning" side in the general election. You know what I mean, there will probably be a little image of the front page of the Sun from the day it claimed the Torys would win or something.
Just why does anyone read this shit excuse for a "news"paper again?
Not really. Indecency is in the eye of the beholder and until the images are known then they could be anything from true child pornography to a magna comic or even pictures of his children (if applicable) in the bath or one the beach. Believe me, there are no depths to which the police will not sink so they can add anything to a weak case then blow it up to make it sound much worse than it is in order to strengthen that case and sway a jury. You've already fallen into that trap yourself.
When the police have a serious case, say a a multiple murderer, they generally only prosecute one or two of the crimes so they have something to fall back on later if they don't get a conviction first time. However, now that double indemity no longer applies they might change this tactic. The weaker a case is they more headline grabbing add-ons there are.
So, what happens if he claims he ate the creature afterwards? Sex with an animal is pretty humane compared with what is done to it in order to eat it. Just what are my sexual limitations with that piece of steak in the fridge? What if the thought of cooking and eating that steak stimulates me? Enquiring minds want to know...
Back when this extreme porn law was still going through Parliament, opponents pointed out the absurd implication that this would make it a crime to possess pictures of people having sex with food they could legally eat and legally own pictures of people eating.
If the squid or octopus in question was intended to be food, this case really could prove that New Labour's New Britain is one in which it can be a crime to possess an image of someone playing with their food!
Perhaps someone should ask the new Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, the Rt Hon Kenneth Clarke QC MP, if the new government will take the opportunity to repeal the silly extreme porn law in their great repeal bill.
"He also faces 14 charges of making indecent images of children."
Who gives a fk about the other stuff if he is being charged with this?
What started as an amusing, if some what disturbing, story turned out to over shadow something actually quite menacing and sick. The Sun has a lot to answer for, but so do you Reg, shame!
In the eyes of the law, "making an image" includes just about all forms of intentional or unintentional downloading or copying.
So, pictures of sex with a dead animal are illegal? Clearly there is no basis for this in terms of animal welfare. What if it was a plastic squid -- is that still illegal? How about a seafood cocktail (sic)?
Prosecute the guy for taking pervy pictures of actual children, and drop the comedy charges, FFS.
It's a shame the Führer and his stormtroopers at CEOP didn't get hold of this story first. We could have been treated to such gems as: "officials report an alarming increasing in images of octopus abuse" and "...this was one of the worst cases of its kind that investigators have ever encountered".
Time to establish a whole panoply of thought crimes, institute a Squid Offenders Register, outlaw cartoon sketches of all aquatic lifeforms, and imprison anyone who voices opposition. Someone please, think of the squid; "their souls will be dying a little more each day for the rest of their lives". Resistance is futile.
That's exactly the reason this is important.
It's a common police/judicial practice - get a guy who is plainly guilty of lots of stuff that any jury will convict on. Throw in an extra charge something like possessing a mobile phone in a section44 area, or using encryption to hide the images.
Got a conviction and you have precedence that using encryption can be prosecuted.
So the next English nationalist in Wales can be held for having an encrypted disk.
The mind boggles: octopus or squid, I've really got no idea how anyone could gain sexual gratification from either - and no, I don't want pictures.
So let me get this right. I can be prosecuted for having pictures of someone apparently enjoying an octopus but it's okay if the image was CGI'd (fc. tiger mentioned in the story) because it's not real flesh & blood. Kind of okay so far but try this: we've all seen a comical picture of someone standing next to a fountain or hosepipe and the juxdaposition makes them appear to be peeing - now if someone were to 'fake it' with the lions in Traflager Square, is that picture legal or illegal to own? It's not CGI but then animals are living beasts so I'm probably on safe ground (but I will probably be strip-searched by Plod* for daring to use a camera in public - something else we're not clear on in the UK these days). Now, do the same perspective trick at London Zoo and - if it's done well - I'll be heading for the slammer*.
Are we all clear on this now? Good.
*Plod: slang for Police; Slammer, slang for prison or gaol
If you're running one of those rinky-dink link-scanners (e.g. AVG) it will cheerfully pre-cache images on pages that are linked to by the page you're currently on.
So now it's not even safe to read articles like this one, in case someone posts a link to the naughties in it.
The really important part abould the CGI Tiger case was that somehow the soundtrack got lost, and that concealed any sign that it was intended as a joke. I don't recall if it happened within the Police unit involved, or the CPS, but when it was discovered, and demonstrated, it pretty much blew the case out of the water. Courts don't like people who mess with the evidence.
They knew it was CGI. That's hard to do well enough to look even approximately real.
His 'indecent images of children' might be topless 14+ teens pouting at webcams. If a joke image is needed to prop the charges up the case might be feeble....
Besides this emphasises that this guy probably had no more intention of engaging in real life activity with a minor than he did with a dead mollusc.
If I get a kick out of Dirty Harry movies - it doesn't mean I blow people's heads off with a .44 magnum. That the thought crime of looking at a picture attracts (if anything more) severe opprobium and sentences similar to committing the depicted act is irrational and unjust.
"His 'indecent images of children' might be topless 14+ teens pouting at webcams. If a joke image is needed to prop the charges up the case might be feeble...."
Quite right. The phrase "Manufacturing an image" could mean he has been photographing children without clothes doing various unpleasant things.
Photo-shopping some cartoons.
Without a trial there really is *no* way of knowing which of these is more accurate. It makes a nice smear tactic though.
People (well lawyers ) talk of "Bringing the law into disrepute." This "law" (IIRC it's actually a couple of clauses of a *huge* bill) seems *designed* to do that.
Roboporn comes to mind. After all, sex with mechanical devices, such as vibrators, is already mainstream. So if extreme pornographers want to get around the extreme porn law, perhaps all they need to do is produce porn featuring humans having sex with various kinds of animal-like robots?
if the octopus was dead, then insurely ceased to be an animal and was just then some octopus shaped meat (or fish if you want to look at it in that way)
No im not saying that is wouldn't still be pervy but would that make it any different than a guy blowing his load over a plate full of bacon or a lamb chop which i am assuming is legal to do so if you wanted?
By your definition, sex with a dead human is also acceptable. Bzzt! Sorry, wrong answer!
However, the image you have left me with of someone with their plate of bacon, suitably adorned, might take a while to shift. Thanks for that; I've gone right off having brunch on Sunday!
Hmm.. Surely raw squid must be some sort of food. I would imagine it'd be like sashimi or something. So... having it off with sashimi 'could' be about as illegal as hmm... do you remember the bloke that was having it off with a cherry pie in 'American Pie' (the film?). Would American pie then be some form of extreme porn? :P
Whether he is guilty of the other charges and if he is throw him down the river but to actuially charge anyone with this absurdity a man shagging an octy! who gives a rats arse honestly.
Obviously a bit of a fruit loop for having that sort of pic but a criminal offense as a result? The end of days must be near.
I've read a few posts implying that the main story is the 14 charges of creating child porn, but I don't see that as the case.
I perceive a general mentality when CPS go after someone they go for a spatter gun effect, try them for as many crimes as possible in the hope that something sticks.
The more crimes they're charged with the more likely they are to be found guilty I think is the way it goes.
The other thing this is going to do is justify the law, if the guy makes kiddy porn he's bad, agreed. He also has images of dead squid/octoporn whatever, that's got to be bad (by association) therefore whenever anyone else has these sorts of images chances are they're as bad as this guy.
What do they call it in legalese? Precedent or something?
So lawyers can start quoting case law in "similar" prosecutions.
I don't have any odd porn, but there was a lot flying about when I was at uni, in a sort of goatse way. It seems like it's just another law to slap people with in the event they can't prove you've actually done something wrong, like the occassions when you've not done anything wrong and some dickhead copper (some of them are dickheads) takes a dislike to you.
There were a large number of native goats on that island.
They found that some of the goats had nicked ears. The ones that he killed and ate never had nicks on their ears.
They summised that he was fucking some and marking them so he could distinguish between his 'lovers' and his 'food'.
It has been said that raw steak makes a passable substitute for the female lady-part. How many pieces do you have to chop a dead animal up into before you can fuck it, lawfully?
It seems so simple to say: "Animals: Kill them. Don't Fuck Them!" but nothing's ever really as uncomplicated as that, is it.
Seriously. The story talks of images from "Level 1" to 4 of severity (can anyone explain this scheme?). Level 5 is meant to be the most severe so WTF is this having-sex-with-a-squid BS doing on the sheet?
Unless the "serious" stuff is actually animated/computer generated, which would be *very* serious if it featured *real* children, except it doesn't.
CP is nasty, abusive behavior to children.
This *feels* more like another tigger porn case.
I thought the whole point about the legislation over extreme porn was to protect the innocent victims, the subjects of the porn.
ie... bdsm, child porn.
The usual argument, if you get rid of the market for it, then people won't carry out the acts.
It's rather crude link anyway, because people aren't paying for the photographs and the perpetrators would probably carry out the acts whether they had people to give the photos or not, as they're doing it for their own personal pleasure.
But shagging a dead animal? Who gets hurt there? Not the animal..it's already dead.
Might be different if the guy was killing the animals for the purpose of shagging them and taking pics.
The extreme law thing is a complete ass anyway, it was so vaguely defined, taking a picture of and S&M model, you know the kind of thing, (don't you?), girl in chains, leather to be published to make money for the photographer, an obviously arranged professional photo shoot, without any actual action taking place, could constitute extreme porn and lead to the photographer being arrested.
Ironic, but it's the coppers, the lawyers, law makers that are more into it than anyone else.
A lot of people seem to be forgetting that this and the new cartoon porn law together create a situation where just about anything can be classified as "indecent images of children" purely based on perception. They could be talking about a bunch of pictures clipped from page 3 of the Sun which, out of context, can easily appear to be under the defined age of a child in the porn laws.
So the whole thing about him being a paedo is more likely just a smokescreen.
<-- I think you know where they can shove this.
The tentacles of this invidious law are penetrating deep into the very core of our society and injecting into it a slimy overlay of fear and criminalisation. That they took many of the public somewhat unaware of this means it is the biggest rape of our society that has made us all look like common suckers. Well, now we know: the consequences of being suckers without complete knowledge normally leavest a bitter taste in our mouths, which has happened here, and makes us unwilling to swallow it. We should, instead, spit it out, and level at this bill our universal condomnation.
You can kill it.. and if you're in one particular version of the Abrahamic faiths feel free to slice its throat out while it's fully conscious..
You can skin, gut and eat it.
But you can't fuck it?
Methinks the law is a little bit screwed up. Not that bonking a slab of meat is my cup of tea, but it's not like a dead squid is going to mind.
Mine's the one with the tofu and texturized soy protein in the pocket. And a flame-proof layer in case people assume I'm into angular sun-wheels due to the first paragraph.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019